K R KADER BATCHA Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE tax cases involve interpretation of section 9(1) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The petitioner, who is the father of two minor sons, was charged to tax on a total agricultural income for the years 1958 to 1962, from lands of the total extent of 81 acres 87 cents., wet and dry. Of this, 22 acres and 15 cents belong to him and there is no dispute about it. 13 acres 10 cents were settled by him on his wife and children on May 23, 1955. An extent of 33 acres 30 cents was purchased by four sale deeds, all dated April 13, 1953, in the names of his minor children represented by their mother and guardian. An extent of 13 acres 32 cents was purchased by the wife on April 13, 1953. There is no controversy that the consideration for the purchases proceeded from the father or the husband as the case may be.

(2.) THE revenue, as well as the Tribunal, overruled an argument of the father that the purchases, as also the settlement, involved no transfer by him of assets from which it could be said agricultural income was derived. THE same point is reiterated before us In our opinion, the Tribunal's conclusion is unassailable. As to the settlement in favour of the wife and children, it was of lands belonging to the assessee and would, therefore, fall within the ambit of section 9(1). In fact, learned counsel for the assessee did not, and quite properly, demur to this. But his contention is that, so far as the purchases were concerned, inasmuch as the consideration therefor was provided by the assessee, it could not be said that the lands purchased were the assets remaining as the property of the settlor or disponer within the meaning of section 9(1). THE argument is also put in a slightly different manner. It is stated that agricultural income for purposes of the sub-section was not derived from the consideration provided for purchase of the lands and that unless such income could be said to have been derived from the assets remaining the property of the settlor or disponer, the income cannot be deemed to be the agricultural income of such settlor or disponer. In other words, what is urged is that lands as such were not transferred by the assessee to his wife or children which were purchased by them, though out of consideration provided by the assessee. THE point really would turn on what is meant by " assets " in section 9(1).